No Expert Evidence To Prove Negligence In Cosmetic Treatment, Bengaluru Consumer Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Oliva Clinic

The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, comprising Syed Anser Kaleem (President), Sharavathi S.M. (Member) and Jyothi N. (Member), dismissed the consumer complaint filed against Oliva Skin and Hair Clinic and its doctors, holding that the complainant failed to establish negligence or deficiency in service through any expert medical evidence and that the treatments had been undertaken with her informed consent. Brief Facts The complainant, Monika Kiran, approached Oliva Skin and Hair Clinic in Bengaluru after noticing advertisements promoting treatments for acne, pigmentation, facial contouring and laser hair reduction. According to the complainant, she initially visited the clinic on 18-08-2023 only for a facial treatment to address minor acne scars. However, after consultation, the doctors at the clinic allegedly persuaded her to undergo Glutathione IV therapy and Laser Hair Reduction (LHR) treatment, assuring her that the procedures would remove acne scars, improve her skin tone and provide better cosmetic results. After undergoing the first session of Glutathione IV and LHR treatment, the complainant's condition worsened, with increased acne breakouts and growth of thick facial hair at the treated area. Despite informing the doctors about the adverse effects and requesting discontinuation of the treatment, she was allegedly advised to continue with further sessions. She claimed that she paid ₹3,50,000 towards a package of treatments but derived no benefit and instead suffered worsening skin and hair-related issues. Alleging that the clinic and its doctors had induced her into undergoing unnecessary procedures, failed to provide effective treatment and caused physical, mental and financial hardship, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, seeking refund of the treatment charges along with compensation for deficiency in service. Contentions of the Opposite Parties The opposite parties denied the allegations and contended that the complainant had approached them with complaints of acne, facial hair and tanning and had voluntarily opted for the prescribed treatment plan after consultation. They submitted that the complainant had signed consent forms, was informed about the nature and possible outcomes of the treatments, and had undergone only a few sessions out of the prescribed course. The opposite parties further argued that the complainant was simultaneously taking treatment from other doctors and had failed to follow the recommended treatment plan, making it impossible to attribute her condition solely to the treatments provided by them.Observations and Decision The Commission observed that the complainant had voluntarily undergone the treatments after consultation and had signed consent forms acknowledging the nature of the procedures, their possible outcomes, and the absence of any guaranteed results. It noted that the opposite parties had also produced treatment records, consent forms, brochures, and photographs which, according to them, reflected improvement in the complainant's condition. The Commission further noted that the complainant failed to produce any expert medical evidence establishing that the Glutathione IV therapy or Laser Hair Reduction treatment had been administered negligently or had directly caused the alleged adverse effects. It also found that the complainant had simultaneously undergone treatment with other doctors and had not completed the treatment plan prescribed by the opposite parties. Holding that medical negligence could not be inferred merely from dissatisfaction with the treatment outcome and that the allegations were unsupported by cogent evidence, the Commission concluded that deficiency in service had not been proved. Accordingly, the Commission dismissed the consumer complaint and declined to grant any relief to the complainant. Case No.: CC/378/2024 Case Title: Monika Kiran v. M/s Oliva Skin and Hair Clinic & Ors. Click Here To Read/Download Order

No Expert Evidence To Prove Negligence In Cosmetic Treatment, Bengaluru Consumer Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Oliva Clinic

Praveen Mishra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Praveen Mishra

No Expert Evidence To Prove Negligence In Cosmetic Treatment, Bengaluru Consumer Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Oliva Clinic

Praveen Mishra

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Praveen Mishra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers